Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 1/2] net/sfc/base: change license to BSD-3-Clause

[Hemant Agrawal <hemant.agrawal@nxp.com>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bruce Richardson [mailto:bruce.richardson@intel.com]
> On Tue, Jan 09, 2018 at 10:59:40PM +0300, Andrew Rybchenko wrote:
> > On 01/09/2018 10:38 PM, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
> > > On 1/8/2018 1:35 PM, Andrew Rybchenko wrote:
> > > > Change license from BSD-2-Clause-FreeBSD to BSD-3-Clause.
> > > > Bump copyright year.
> > > >
> > > <...>
> > >
> > > > @@ -1,28 +1,8 @@
> > > > +   SPDX-License-Identifier: BSD-3-Clause
> > > > -   Copyright (c) 2006-2016 Solarflare Communications Inc.
> > > > +   Copyright (c) 2006-2018 Solarflare Communications Inc.
> > > >      All rights reserved.
> > > Defined syntax has no empty line between SPDX and Copyright line, is
> > > that line intentionally left?
> >
> > Yes. I've seen examples, but have not found exact requirement to have
> > no empty line. We have file with 2 copyright holders and it looks
> > strange in this case without empty line.
> >
> As far as I know, the format for headers is fully spec'ed, except that it is
> optional to have blank line after the SPDX tag. Either is allowed, and it's not
> likely to have major scripting implications. I think most of us prefer to not
> have the line, but it's not prohibited.

[Hemant]  +1 
We did discuss about it and we left it to the choice of submitter.  There is no hard rule about it.